Re^2: You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)

I think stirring up this thread is a big mistake but I respect and like you so it matters to me what you think.

If I had read my own post without context, I would have had the reaction you did. My post was in the context of some then recent history and made because of fatigue from what I perceived as false humility poured over braggadocio wedded with XP whining.

It’s not about profanity; that was just an easy highlight without the need for deep reading and analytical scribbling. It’s about unwarranted hostility and the penchant to dig in and dish the last word.

I considered BUK a friend. I had defended his—and a couple other high-contributing monks who have some rough social skills—attitude in deference to the level of skill and help he brings and I came to his aid personally in private messages in the CB a few years ago and felt pride and a real connection that I could help a senior monk having a hard day. Then, a bit back, he called me a “twat” and a “pedant” (the definition of the pot calling the kettle black here) for replying too flatly about a Unicode/mixed-corrupt-data question; Mixed Unicode and ANSI string comparisons?. He felt to the need to double down on it, too; Context, pedantry and appropriate response.. At that point I’d had enough, clearly, and that sentiment had legs.

I respected and liked him. So it mattered to me what he thought. I was pretty hurt. Deference is permanently off the table for me. Case by case only now and the case in question rattled my cage.

From a couple weeks ago; A data selection problem(in3D).–

OP: Any thoughts, speculations or suggestions gratefully received.

Response: [This? Is this the idea?]

OP: …Either you have something that will help … or you don't, and move on. …if I wanted a half-arsed solution, I had (and demonstrated) that a week ago. …But if joy is too much for you....

Hostility, not grace, for answering the call of participation, for falling short, in direct contradiction to the tone offered in the question. It’s a mode, not an outlier.

Footnote, FTR, I do not dispute whatsoever the plain fact that BUK is among the most valuable contributors here.

Update: regarding “…the penchant to dig in and dish the last word.” Got the last word twice, so far, this time. Oh, it was a banner effing post at the old PerlMonks family.

Comment on Re^2: You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: You're welcome ďż˝ was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 20, 2017 at 00:07 UTC
And since you brought it up. Have you been back to that subthread? Have you read the alternate subthread resulting from the same post to which you added your non reply? Do you not see how that alternate subthread moves the discussion forward; where as your adds exactly nothing to it? I also considered you "a friend" -- we've had many good interactions -- but wouldn't it be hypocritical of me to not react to your non-contribution in the same way I would had it come from anonymonk? It saddens me that you choose to be so offended by my very mild rebuke of you for your non-helpful, non-useful, non-contributory, non-informative, non-response; but then a lot about this place saddens me. But what saddens me most of all is that there are so many here who's only contributions are to stifle, harangue and suppress those who'd like to get on with using this place for a free and open exchange of ideas as it's intended. So sad. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity. In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit	[reply]
Re^3: You're welcome ďż˝ was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144) by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 19, 2017 at 23:46 UTC
Response: This? Is this the idea? Once again, you omit context. You fail to quote the part of the post to which I responded. The part I quoted in my response. Ie. "Is that intended (and only) use of this magic palette?" What you see as "Hostility, not grace,"; I see as proportionate response in kind. As with every single SoPW I have posted going back years; there is always some anonymonk with a chip on his shoulder telling me that he doesn't feel my question is worthy of asking; or my purpose worthy of his (or PM's) consideration. My reply simply pointed out that as with every other SoPW by every other monk, he is free to ignore my questions. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity. In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit	[reply]


Don't ask to ask, just ask
	PerlMonks